Delhi District Court
Shri Sanjay Sharma vs Smt. Pooja Sharma on 5 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF REETESH SINGH,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (NORTH-EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.-256/09
Date of institution of the case : 20.08.2009
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 08.04.2011
Date on which Judgment was pronounced : 05.05.2011
Unique ID No. 02402C0240882009
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
S/O SHRI BHAGWAT PRASAD SHARMA
R/O B-4, MANSAROVAR PARK,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032.
............PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. SMT. POOJA SHARMA
W/O SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA
D/O SHRI HARI KISHAN SHARMA
2. SHRI HARI KISHAN SHARMA
S/O SHRI NATHI LAL SHARMA
3. SMT. USHA SHARMA
W/O SHRI HARI KISHAN SHARMA
ALL R/O 37/28, IDGAH CHOWK,
BAGICHI LOHARON KI,
NAMNER, DISTT. AGRA,
U.P.
CS No.-256/09 Page No. 1/14
4. SHRI RAKESH BABU SHARMA
S/O SHRI RAM NARAIN SHARMA
5. SHRI DHARMENDER SHARMA
S/O SHRI RAM NARAIN SHARMA
6. SMT. VEENA SHARMA
W/O SHRI RAKESH SHARMA
7. SMT. YOGITA SHARMA
W/O SHRI DHARMENDER SHARMA
ALL R/O TYPE-II/53,
BHEL TOWNSHIP, JHANSI,
U.P.
................DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, I shall decide an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 29.10.2009 seeking rejection of the plaint. Reply to the said application has been filed by the plaintiff on 06.04.2011 and arguments were heard on 08.04.2011.
2. The only ground urged by the counsel for defendants was that this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel submitted that the present suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge, North-East, Delhi on 20.08.2009 seeking recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- against the defendants as damages for defaming the plaintiff. Second prayer was for grant of decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from solemnizing second marriage of defendant no. 1 with the relative of defendant no. 4 or any CS No.-256/09 Page No. 2/14 other person without obtaining a decree of divorce or judicial separation from the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendants has argued that on the face of it, no part of cause of action for filing the suit has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit are residents of Agra, U.P. and defendants no. 4-7 are residents of Jhansi, U.P. Counsel for defendants has argued that merely because plaintiff is resident of Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
3. On the other hand counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and that defendant no. 1 was taken away from his custody by defendant no. 3 from his residence. It is further argued that defamatory allegations were leveled by the defendants no. 2-7 with the collusion of defendant no. 1 through a telephonic conversation which was heard by the plaintiff at his residence which was within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that defendants have initiated criminal complaints which were inquired into in Delhi and hence this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. In rejoinder, counsel for defendants submits that if contentions of the plaintiff are to be accepted as true, even then only because a complaint was made outside but was investigated at Delhi would not be raise any cause of action to file the suit in this Court. He pointed out that no factual foundation CS No.-256/09 Page No. 3/14 was laid in the plaint regarding these complaints.
5. Heard the parties. Perused the record.
6. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendants as damages on account of defamation the plaintiff. Second prayer is for grant of decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant solemnizing second marriage of defendant no. 1 with the relation of defendant no. 4 or any other person without obtaining decree of divorce or judicial separation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 was pleased to hold with respect to an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as under:-
12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint."
7. Further, in the case of C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai (2007) 14 SCC 183 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"8. An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider CS No.-256/09 Page No. 4/14 the case of the defence."
8. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case above, the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has be considered only with respect to averments made in the plaint to see whether this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
9. I have gone through the contents of the plaint. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi. The Defendants no.1, 2 and 3 are residents of Agra, U.P. and Defendants no. 4-7 are residents of Jhansi, U.P. In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiff that he got married to defendant no. 1. Date and place of the marriage are not pleaded in the plaint. However, along with the list of documents, a photocopy of a certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj, 2164 Jamuna Bazar, Delhi has been placed on record as per which a marriage was solemnized between Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma and Pooja Sharma on 31.01.2009 at that venue. It is further stated in the plaint that defendants no. 2-7 came to know of the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and gave their consent.
9. It is stated that subsequently defendant no. 1 filed Criminal Writ petition no. 314/09 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to direct SHO, PS Mansarovar Park to provide security to defendant no. 1 who was petitioner in the said Writ petition) and in laws of defendant no. 1 who were facing threats CS No.-256/09 Page No. 5/14 from family members of defendant no. 1. It is averred that before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi defendant no.1 has stated that she got married with plaintiff at Delhi. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by order dated 17.03.2009, copy of which has been filed with the list of documents. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had recorded that defendant no.1 (petitioner in the said writ petition) had entered into a marriage with plaintiff who was the husband of her maternal aunt (mausi), i.e. defendant no.1 had gotten married to the husband of sister of her mother.
10. It is further stated in the plaint that on 04.05.2009, defendant no. 3 came to the residence of the plaintiff and took away defendant no. 1 from his custody by way of misrepresentation. It is stated that since 04.05.2009, defendant no. 1 was residing with the defendants no. 2 and 3 who are father and mother of defendant no. 1 respectively and since then plaintiff was not permitted to contact defendant no. 1. It is averred that subsequently defendant no. 1 informed plaintiff that she was being illegally detained by defendants no. 2-7. It is averred that plaintiff has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 in the Matrimonial Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi which is pending. It is further averred that defendants no, 2-7 were spreading rumours about the plaintiff to the fact that plaintiff was a person of bad character. It is averred that plaintiff was defamed by the defendants no. 2-7 who were defaming him amongst common relatives which words were heard by CS No.-256/09 Page No. 6/14 the plaintiff at his residence through telephonic conversations from the mouth of defendants no. 2-7. Further with respect to territorial jurisdiction, plaintiff has averred in para 14 of the plaint as under:-
"14. That the plaintiff has been residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the defendant no. 1 was removed back by the defendant no. 3 and Shri Ballo Sharma from the company of Plaintiff in furtherance of their wrongful tactics from the residence of Plaintiff. The defamatory allegation has been delivered by Defendants. No. 2 to 7 in connivance and collusion of Defendant No. 1 through telephonic conversation at the residence of Plaintiff located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, hence this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit on merits. The cause of action for filing of the present suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, as such, this Hon'ble Court is having ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit."
11. With respect to cause of action in para 13, it is stated that by the plaintiff that cause of action accrued on 31.01.2009 when defendant no. 1 entered into marriage with the plaintiff. Cause of action further accrued on filing of criminal writ petition no. 314/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Cause of action also accrued on 04.05.2009 when defendant no. 3 took away defendant no. 1 from the custody of the plaintiff from Delhi. It is further stated that cause of action also arose on 05.05.2009 is continuing as the defendants CS No.-256/09 Page No. 7/14 no. 2-7 are continuing to defame the plaintiff.
12. Territorial jurisdiction of a Civil Court is governed under the provisions of Section 16 to 20 of the CPC, 1908. Section 19 of the CPC lays down provisions relating suits for compensation for wrong done to a person. The same reads as under:-
"19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.--Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or per- sonally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdic- tion of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
Illustrations
(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements de-
famatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi."
13. Perusal of Section 19 reproduced above reveals that where a suit is filed for compensation for wrong done to a person, such suit can be filed within the local limits of the Court where wrong was done or where the CS No.-256/09 Page No. 8/14 defendant resides or carries on business. Illustration (b) to Section 19 of the CPC, in the opinion of this Court, clinches the issue. In the said illustration, it is provided that A who resides in Delhi published defamatory against B in Calcutta. In this situation B either may file a suit either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
14. In the present case, defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 are residents of Agra, U.P. and defendants no. 4-7 are residents of Jhansi, U.P. With regard to the defamatory statements, plaintiff has stated in para 14 that he heard the defamatory statement in a telephonic conversation at his residence in Delhi. Although the plaintiff has not stated in the plaint as to where the defamatory words were uttered, there is no averment in the plaint that the said words were uttered within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the plaintiff heard the defamatory words in a telephonic conversation in Delhi at his residence would not give rise to a cause of action to institute the suit in this Court. Applying illustration B to Section 19 CPC to the facts of this case, since the act of defamation as alleged were not committed by the defendants in Delhi and also that the defendants are admittedly not residents of Delhi, no part of the cause of action with respect to the claim for damages has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence in the opinion of this Court, the suit of the plaintiff with respect to the same is liable to be returned under the provisions of under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
15. As regards relief no. 2 in the plaint, the same pertains to relief for CS No.-256/09 Page No. 9/14 decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from solemnizing marriage of defendant no. 1 with any relation of defendant no. 4 or any other person without obtaining decree of divorce or judicial separation. In the plaint it is averred that defendant no. 1 when in custody of defendants no. 2and 3 at Agra U.P. informed the plaintiff that her parents were going to solemnize her marriage with some other person. Said statement as per the plaintiff himself was made by the defendant no. 1 when she was in the custody of defendants no. 2 and 3 at Agra. Hence, cause of action for filing the suit with respect to the second relief would be the intimation by defendant no. 1 of these facts of the plaintiff. Merely because plaintiff received the said intimation at his residence in Shahdara, Delhi, would not give rise to any cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the second relief claimed by the plaintiff also cannot be entertained by this Court.
16. For the reasons recorded above, application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed. Plaint of the plaintiff be returned to him under the provisions of under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with liberty to present the same before the appropriate Court in accordance with law. Order on Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff dated 28.04.2011
17. Arguments on the application of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were heard on 08.04.2011 and judgment was reserved. This application CS No.-256/09 Page No. 10/14 was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff on 28.04.2011 i.e. after the date on which judgment was reserved.
18. In the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where the hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order XX Rule 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed.
19. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold in the case of Arti Sukhdev Kashyap and Ors. Vs. Daya Kishore Arora reported in 1992 (24) DRJ 285 that when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit: (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. Where hearing is completed the parties have no further right or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order XX Rule 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed. There is thus no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the judgment so as to make it necessary, for the court to afford to the party the remedy of getting orders passed on the lines of Order IX Rule 7. As provision has been made for every contingency, there is no scope for the invocation of CS No.-256/09 Page No. 11/14 the inherent powers of the Court to make an order necessary for the ends of justice.
20. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) has also been followed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj Jain and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj 71 where the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC moved by the plaintiff after the case was reserved for judgment holding that no application could be moved after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment since as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically decided in the case of Arjun Singh Vs.Mohindra Kumar that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment, it could not be said that there can be any stage in between the closure of the case for judgment and the pronouncement of the judgment itself.
21. Further in the case of Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. Prof. C.L. Mishra and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Raj 274 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was pleased to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) and hold that where hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order 20 Rule 1 permits Judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is CS No.-256/09 Page No. 12/14 completed. It would, therefore, follow that after the judgment is re served there remains no stage in any case. Thus, there is no hiatus (break) between the two stages of reservation of Judgment and pronouncing it.
22. The judgement in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Devi v. Vaneeta Jain reported in (2007) 7 SCC 200 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"15. Having regard to the totality of circumstances we are of the view that in the interest of justice this appeal must be allowed. The learned District Judge recorded evidence, heard arguments and posted the matter later in the day for delivery of judgment. If the court had adjourned the proceedings to another day after deciding to proceed ex parte, the defendant could have applied for being permitted to participate in the proceedings. In this case since everything happened on the same day the defendant did not get an opportunity to do so. The learned District Judge decided to proceed ex parte. It thereafter examined the witnesses present in court and proceeded to hear arguments. It reserved its judgment to be pronounced later in the day. Even before he could pronounce judgment, counsel for the defendant had moved an application before him for recall of the order. It is true that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Arjun Singh1 the learned District Judge could not have entertained an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC."
(Emphasis supplied) CS No.-256/09 Page No. 13/14
23. It is therefore settled law that an application moved after judgment in a case has been reserved is not maintainable. Since the application of plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed after judgment was reserved, the same is not maintainable and is dismissed.
24. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Dictated to the Steno and announced in the Open Court today i.e. 05.05.2011.
(REETESH SINGH) Addl. Distt. Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS No.-256/09 Page No. 14/14